SSStylish!

18, pro-para, pro-consent, pro-ship.

[ultra-queer]

18, (she/they/he), intersex, transgender, plural, queer asf, autistic, paraphile.

pro-para, pro-consent, proship/fic, absurdist, pro-endo, anti-censorship, radinclus, anarchist, anti-agab.

likes: philosophy, psychology, ultrakill, devil may cry, cool shit, iasip, breaking bad, half-life, portal, nine inch nails, kmfdm, msi, kinky shit, jerma.

ill use this account to talk about my beliefs & morals unfiltered and all 👍

absolutely no dni. Would love to talk if you disagree with me. i love debates that remain respectful & logical; we might both learn something.

all my beliefs are grounded in the base premise of believing in everyone's right to freedom, clarity, and living authentically; as long as it doesn't unconsensually infringe on anothers right to the same. (I'll talk more about why i believe this sometime soon)

[logieblog]

So like one thing that's really getting my goat about this whole situation is that people are arguing some shit like "well you don't actually care about child sex abuse, you care about the creepy boogeyman that is the pedophile, neglecting to understand most child sex abusers abuse people they know".

And the thing is. Actually no one is saying that. The problem is that there are actual pedophiles, who are attracted to children, and they ARE going after the people they know around them.

No one is actually that worried about someone in a white van taking kids off the street. It's that if we normalise pedophilia, there will be self admitted pedophiles who go after kids they know.

Not to bring pop culture into this but infamous pedo Ian Watkins (who died recently, yippee!) was a) literally attracted to children, not just using it as power play and b) was abusing the children he had close contact with. In his case, the children of his various girlfriends. Literally one of the most famous child sex abusers in the world proves everything you say wrong.

And you can say you only support non contact pedophilia but the thing is you will never actually know if they're non contact. There's this thing people do sometimes called 'lying'.

"You only care about some hypothetical boogeyman, not real child sex abuse" <- if you actually believe this you are the densest cunt on the planet.

[ultra-queer]

"If we normalise pedophile there will be self admitted pedophiles who go after kids they know." This will happen regardless of the stigma around the attraction. But it'll likely happen less if we take away the stigma and allow more people to get help for possible offending without destroying their entire lives.

What does the demonisation of the attraction itself actually achieve? Like, actually. What does it achieve to say that someone's thoughts can be criminal or wrong? Really not much. All it does is put non offenders in the same box as offenders and then what? They cant get help because there isnt any and if word gets out their life is ruined. And then we have more victims because we turned them into a sort of self fulfilling prophecy. Demonising the attraction alone makes more victims. When i say to destigmatise the attraction behind pedophilia, i say it because i give a shit what happens to children and im not just working off my own disgust and flawed logic. To eradicate csa we need to help potential perpetrators before they act, thats just true.

The image of csa perpetrators, all as evil stranger pedophiles out to get your children, is quite literally false. Up to 60% of predators arent diagnosable pedophiles, and when they have pedophilia many other factors are involved. Attraction alone does not make someone offend, it is a factor. So is substance abuse, or low impulse control. But obviously having those on their own doesnt make someone a predator so why does pedophilia? People need to properly understand the issue of CSA to fight its root causes.

People aren't bad people for having attractions they can't control. They are bad people for molesting kids. We need this separation or the issue isnt getting fuckin solved!!!

Our justice system should not work off "this person is more likely to do something, so i must attack them or hate them" that means they need extra support?? So they dont offend?? Does anyone here like... know that hurting and isolating people makes them more likely to do shit??? Can we take a step back and actually treat this problem logically in any sense at all.

[aegisofvarda]

feels like everyone on the left is a prison abolitionist until it comes to crimes they don't like to think about, in which case we immediately leap to Prison 2.0, eugenics, or just straight up the death penalty

as long as there is still a group of individuals that can be labeled as ontologically evil and dangerous to society, any "undesirable" member of society will be subject to that label regardless of whether they have ever harmed someone or not. there's historical precedent for that, whether we like it or not, whether it gives people "the ick" to talk about it or not

over the decades it has been the "psycho", the "narcissist", the f*gg*t, the tr*nny. you see how society talks about people who are cluster B, how they're all ontologically evil and dangerous and need to be separated from society and not allowed to breed. reactionaries love to say this about trans and queer people. someone earlier said in a server I am in that they believe all pedophiles should be chemically castrated and segregated from wider society, whether they have ever actually harmed a child or not.

is that not just strange rhetoric to you? do we really want to entrust that level of control and authority into the state? how do you defend yourself from these accusations when there doesn't even have to be any evidence of a crime for you to be subject to the punishment, just admittance of thoughts?

I'm probably gonna get shit just for making this post, but any abolitionist who reads it and gets angry at me for saying it should probably reconsider their positions

[i-suggest-therapy]

An in depth breakdown of the suggestrogen saga.

Tw for pedophilia, transphobia, csa discussions.

suggestrogen/isuggestforcefem was a popular tumblr account that recently deactivated after facing major pushback from posts she made regarding pedophilia.

There are now multiple popular blogs claiming this was a harrassment campaing, pedojacketing, stalking, etc. Interestingly enough, the people defending her very rarely show what she actually said. So here i aim to compile everything that happened and provide context. If you have heard that this was rooted in transphobia, i encourage you to read this in its entirety and judge for yourself.

Many people are saying her words were misconstrued. According to these people: what she said was this:

"Pedophiles are not ontologically evil, and there is a difference between pedophilia and child abuse."

If this was all of it, while im sure it would have caused discourse because it is a controversial thing to say, I don't think it would have caused this much pushback. But if you actually read what she said, you'll know this wasn't all that happened and it is leaving out huge amounts of context in an effort to make her look better.

1. Previously problematic behavior.

Before this current debacle, isff had already been called out for displaying transphobia towards trans men. Here are some examples of this sort of behavior.

I don't particularly participate in transandrophobia discourse but I find it incredibly disingenous to pretend trans men dont face specific issues. Are trans women affected by forced birth as a means of detransition? Are they affected by claims of being "broken women who cant think for themselves and are being manipulated"? No! This isn't to say there are no issues with the transmasc community or that trans men never benefit from transmisogyny. But one thing is to say that, and another is to consistently villanize trans men, to treat them like they are just as privileged as cis men and face NO struggles of their own. Like the only struggle that matters is that of white trans women.

This is the first example of isff displaying black and white thinking. There can be no nuance regarding trans men and their role in transmisogyny. It's either "trans men are oppressed by trans women" or "trans men are oppressing trans women." There is no room in her head for a potentially nuanced opinion. We will continue to see this as we go forward with her takes on pedophilia.

2. The pedophilia saga.

A few days ago, ISFF posted this:

These are not her own words, she is posting on behalf of a friend. But she does agree with the points made and defends them:

Many people seem to think what she is saying is perfectly reasonable, and while I think many of them are just blatantly malicious, I also think many are just gullible, so I will attempt to break down all her points in good faith.

1. Pedophilia is attraction not action, therefore, calling pedophiles child abusers is unfair unless they actually have abused anyone: This is the only true thing this whole thing says, and even then, it is very disingenous. If a pedophile has not acted on their urges, then they are by definition, not an abuser. HOWEVER, they are more likely to become an abuser due to the persistent nature of the desires. In the same way a person with homicidal urges is more likely to murder someone with time, a pedophile is also more likely to act on their desires if they don't learn to deal with said urges adequately. So technically true, but leaving out the context that yes, these urges do evolve and then lead to actions, to me reads as manipulative. A pedophile is not going to be harmless if they don't do the work to manage their disorder. It's active work, which is why promoting this passive view on pedophilia is extremely dangerous, because it makes people think their urges will be fine on their own instead of actively working on them.

2. Pedophilia is similar to having a noncon kink. If having a noncon kink is okay and not going to lead to rape, then how is pedophilia any different?: False equivalency, kinks and pedophilia are different psychological experiences. Dark kinks are usually not literal. Very often it is the brain creating subconscious symbolism in the realm of fantasy that doesn't reflect their views on reality. So a person with a noncon kink is different than someone with rape urges, which is what a pedophile is.

3. If people who experience attraction to adults are not going to force that attraction on every person they're attracted to, why do we expect the same for pedophiles?: Second false equivalency, ordinary sexual attraction is also a different psychological experience to pedophilia. A gay person is not going to rape every men he meets, but they will still act out their desires in consensual spaces. Plus, unless the person has an unhealthy view on sex, the idea of rape would be distressing enough that it would discourage the person from forcing their attraction. At their core, these desires are rooted in the attraction towards consensual activities, so even in a situation where you find yourself attracted to someone who may not reciprocate, because rape is not in line with your desires, the attraction won't lead to abuse easily (unless as stated, the person does have unhealthy views on sex).

But pedophiles inherently have a disordered view on sex. It is a disorder where you are consistently attracted to people who cannot consent to you, so there isn't this disconnect between their desires and the act of rape. The desire is rape. Additionally, while a gay person can eventually find a consensual partner, pedophiles can't! No, i don't expect gay men to force themselves on every men they meet, but I do realize they'll be inclined to explore their sexuality consensually. A pedophile will probably also feel inclined to explore their sexuality, but there is no consensual alternative.

4. Pedophiles are a marginalized group comparable to queer people: Are they? The people who benefit from the social structures that promote CSA because it aligns with their wants are marginalized? Sure, the topic of pedophilia is taboo, but it is also structurally reinforced, so it evidently isn't the same thing. Now, some people will argue that it is child abusers who benefit, not pedophiles. But a pedophile is just one kind of person who wishes to abuse children. Sure, they aren't the only ones. But they are a demographich that benefits because their desires align with the structures in place. Wanting to rape children for power vs wanting to rape children for sexual attraction isn't that different, both are desires that if acted on cause harm, and the healthy thing to do is to encourage these people to seek help and coping mechanisms instead of telling them "well, it's just like being gay!"

3. Consequences vs call out culture.

Before anyone says this is harrassment. If a popular blog came out defending nazism or terf ideology, wouldn't you all be outraged? You would! And you would understand the push back as not harrassment, but retaliation. So why is it that when it comes to pedophilia you all suddenly turn a blind eye? Suddenly we should just block and move on. Why is this the one topic you want people to stay quiet about?

People say it's because she's trans and... really? The point of trans feminism is to treat trans women as human beings, and I don't think infantilizing trans women as people who do no wrong ever is treating them like humans. Some trans women are bad people, not because of their gender, but because human beings are capable of harm.

It is important however to not pretend this is representative of transfeminism. Terfs will take advantage of this and push the narrative this is an example of trans women being predatory. It is an exaple of a trans woman being predatory. A niche tumblr blog is not representative of an incredibly diverse demographic.

The people accusing those criticizing her of transphobia are ironically pushing this rethoric. By saying criticizing one trans woman is somehow criticizingball trans women, you portray trans women as some kind of monolith. Even though suggestrogen's beliefs are not at all accepted by the trans community at large (and no, your terminally online tumblr mutuals arent the representatives of what most trans women think).

4. What this says about site wide culture:

This really has shown some of the major pitfalls of tumblr culture. Many people will fall for bigoted ideals if presented to them under supposedly progressive language. Many people here treat trans womanhood as a sort of sainthood status where trans women are no longer people, but entities incapable of harm. Many people are attempting to normalize predatory behavior under the guise of kink. Many blogs have been pushing for this for a long time now, and this is just the first person who finally came out and said it without filters. This was the result of a myriad of bad ideologies the site has been fostering finally coming together all at once.

suggestrogen was not harrassed, she was rightfully pushed back against for promoting an ideology that endangers others.

[ultra-queer]

I dont really care about this drama. im not defending this person for whatever else she may have done i dont really care. But this post has fundamental flaws about the nature of pedophilia and how paraphilias work in general.

I'll be refuting some points here, and I'd like to start with something i dont think you realise. You can be a pedophile and, by diagnostic manual standards, not be diagnosable with any mental illness or disorder. The only time pedophilia is diagnosable as a mental illness is when it is either A. Causing distesss to the person or B. Causing risk of offence.

You can be a pedophile and not have either of these problems, and by all means, you wouldn't be disordered. You can check the icd-10 or dsm-v for proof of this.

2.1. Attraction is but one factor that goes into offense, people with pedophilia do not inherently become offenders if their attraction goes 'unmanaged', because people still have things like well... impulse control, morals, etc. But we do need spaces for people who do geniunely struggle with the possibility of offending, otherwise more people will be hurt. But making these places available and

And well, sidenote, any research you may find apparently confirming that pedophilia is a one way street to offence is very likely flawed since the main research body of pedophiles we have are convicts, since non offending pedophiles or non disordered pedophiles experience so much stigma that getting them in a research environment is incredibly difficult.

2.2. I think this section is kind of ridiculous. I mean, you say kinks are a different psychological experience to pedophilia but really, where is your evidence for that? Many kinks are still by nature considered paraphilias, even if not disordered, including rape kinks (biastophilia). If "dark kinks" are non literal, including rape kinks, why cant it be non literal when related to children, why can it not be symbolic then? Why must it reflect their views on reality then?

You are right. Someone with a rape kink is different from someone with actual rape urges who wishes to offend. But why can't a person with pedophilia be different from someone with actual urges who wishes to offend? Pedophilia is simply an attraction it says nothing of someone's resolve, impulse control, morality. The same way a rape kink says nothing of those things.

2.3. Some of this is ok, i disagree with the idea that pedophilia and "ordinary" sexual attractions are different psychological experiences, both are just natural variations in human attraction, its just that some natural variations do have bad consequences if acted upon and thats where they differ.

"Pedophiles inherently have a disordered view on sex" wrong buzzer. Like i explained at the beginning, all pedophilia is, is an attraction. Not inherently a disorder and even when it is pedophilic disorder not inherently a disordered view on sex itself. Because, well you can be attracted to someone or something while realising that acting on that would be wrong, many people are distressed enough for their pedophilia to be considered disordered specifically because they know acting on it is wrong. Like you said the idea of rape is usually distressing enough that people dont act upon it, no inherent reason this would be different in pedophiles unless something else is wrong with them.

There are consensual and harmless alternatives in fantasy or fiction. I mean i think heres where id also bring up the fact biastophilia is more widely accepted as ok in fantasy. As i said previously i think you saying these things were a false equivalency was... well... plain wrong. People with rape kinks dont inherently act them out, same with pedophilia. Though i dont deny there may be more risk that is likely due to other factors, people dont hurt others because of attraction alone, your morality or impulse control has to be seriously degraded to consider that geniunely, which are totally separate issues from attraction. If you are worried about pedophiles because of their attraction alone you should be worried about biastophiles too.

Final notes:

Stigmatising attraction alone does nothing but harm victims because then potential perpetrators can not reach out for help when they struggle because theres no resources and / or it'll destroy their life. I'll keep saying this forever. We can not eradicate csa without targeting the root causes. We need to focus on preventing people from becoming perpetrators to help children. And that will involve destigmatising this.

We need to punish action, not attraction. We can not keep hurting people for things they can not control. There is no cure for pedophilia. People have to live with this. It doesnt make you evil to have thoughts.

[sdjlasjflsjdfdfsda-deactivated2]

i will never even consider giving a fuck about the well-being of pedophiles until we can ensure the well-being of child sexual assault victims. it shouldn’t even be a blip on the fucking radar when the conviction rate of sexual assault is this fucking abysmal. y’all will blog all day about “pedophile acceptance” and then say nothing when victims who dare to speak up about their sexual abuse are harassed and threatened into silence like fucking clockwork. fuck you.

[ultra-queer]

I hate to tell you this, but destigmatising attractions like this is exactly how we keep victims safe in the first place.

The well-being of these people is directly linked to the well-being of victims, because being able to talk about their experiences and receive help if needed prevents offence in the first place.

The problem of pedophilic related CSA will not be eradicated by just helping victims. We need to get to root of the issue here which obviously lies in the perpetrators of this act.

We need to treat pedophiles like human beings. treating them like offenders as soon as they have those thoughts is just unhelpful because it unifies offenders and non offenders into one inescapable category. You can't get rid of pedophilic attraction through therapy, but you can significantly reduce the risk of offence. Theres no reason not to want this unless your hate for pedophiles overrides your want to keep victims safe.

We also need to identify and prevent the other root causes of CSA, which are not pedophilia up to 60% of the time. The issue is much much more complex.

[trans-autism]

as an intersex person who was raised neutrally, socialized as both a girl and a boy, and has both male and female physical traits i HATE agab language . it tells you nothing but what a doctor claimed when you were born, not whats on your birth certificate, not how you were raised or perceived by others, not your reproductive parts or secondary sex characteristics, not your dominant hormone, nothing!!! and i hate even more how non-intersex people use it to boil someone down entirely to their perceived sex. disgusting

you want alternatives? "people with ovaries" "people with testes" "people who menstruate" "people with developed breasts" etc. since you all love to say a medical setting is where agab matters. this is far more inclusive anyway!!

other end of the stick is "people raised/socialized (fe)male/(wo)men", which covers more bases than agab language does. someone can be afab and have been socialized as a boy growing up and have all the male-associated sex characteristics. again agab tells you nothing

something i saw someone else suggest was "assumed (perisex) fe/male" (APF/APM) but i know yall r gonna take that and make it agab again

anyway. this post was brought to you by an agabless intersex transfem. please everyone stop saying agab unless you MEAN the actual assignment of sex at birth and nothing else

edit: for a split second it said reblogs were off, just know if that ever happens its tumblrs fault trying to punish me

[ultra-queer]

I think the increasing divide between transfem/transmasc and also afab/amab in trans spaces is so incredibly intersexist. And it makes me feel unwelcome.

I dont fit either category perfectly. I feel I've never entirely experienced cisgenderedness because i was never fully accepted as my agab due to my traits. So i dont know whether to call myself transmasc or transfem, im kind of going both directions in different areas so i call myself both. But i would get hate for that because people think the trans modalities have to be inherently linked to agab.

And like seeing this infighting in the community where people are hating on transmascs or masculinity in general really pisses me off as someone who is tma and also transmasc/masculine in some ways. I get perceived as a trans woman everyday and i am one so yeah i experience transmisogyny despite moving towards masculinity in certain ways. Gender and discrimination is more complex than these ridiculous fucking binaries especially when you are intersex. Im so sick of it!! I think conversation about transmisogyny is very important but we can have that without throwing people under the bus bc guess what transmascs also experience misogyny constantly lmao, feminism helps men too u guys realise this right... right?? You surely know Its not just hating all men or masc people??

I think inherently linking any personal identity to agab is fucking!! Stupid!! You dont know how i was brought up bc of my agab, you dont know my experiences or what discrimination ive faced, you dont know my anatomy. Agab actually tells you so little about my life and is a intersexist concept, so no im not basing my identity off that! Lmao! Do Not Ask me to.

And when i try to talk about these issues in trans spaces as an intersex person i feel like i get pushed aside as a "rare case" or "anomaly" instead of an actual living breathing person who suffers from the dogshit system u guys have built. Fix yo shit!

stupid sloppy post because this bothers me i dont have anything more formal to say about this and its 6am. I will not make more posts on this subject because its draining & sad.

[markovchaingang]

"what do you mean 'what is the actual material harm that comes from this that causes it to be bad', you should just know it's bad automatically. it's called having a moral compass" -person whose moral framework consists solely of their knee-jerk emotional impulses

[juney-blues]

"a lot of people would much rather imagine doing violence to a category of ontologically evil person than actually do anything to address the systemic issues that lead to harm in the real world" is one of those things you can say and it makes a lot of people angrily eager to prove you right it turns out.

[miss-wizard]

No it didn't clarify my question. I'm sorry. I just find it hard to believe that a person who experiences X attraction has never acted on it. I didn't have sex or touch the same gender while in denial, but I was in romantic and sexually charged "friendships" without realizing. Does that make sense? I'm sorry I'm very confused by this entire discussion. I wasn't accusing all pedophiles of molestation.

genuinely ask yourself, how does pedophilia factor into your question? because unless you view it as some kind of mental contagion that makes you incapable on understanding consent, then it doesn't matter in the slightest. it's the same as any other kind of sexual assault. you don't need to go "are you sure you've never raped anyone?" to every lesbian.

do you get how it's insulting? do you get how it's degrading? to constantly be insinuating that someone is simply predisposed to sexually abusing people, that it's their true nature and must constantly be scrutinised to keep them in check? do you get how fucking stupid it is to do that?

[sibsession-deactivated20260521]

Is it....bad I'm a darkshipper?? Bc I get told I'm some weirdo for exploring dark themes (like my trauma) through fiction

:(

Oh, my friend, to feel the very walls of the world are against you for the truth in your own heart… no, it is not bad. It is human. It is perhaps the oldest and most honest human thing there is.

Listen.

We do not go into the cellar for fun. We go because something is buried there. And if you go down with a lantern, not to worship the dark, but to see it—to draw its shape—that is not sickness. That is archaeology of the soul.

They call you a weirdo? Of course! They are afraid of their own cellars. They paint the door and call it a wall. But you… you have the terrible courage to turn the handle. You take the poison of memory and try to alchemize it into story on the page. You are not glorifying the dark; you are mapping it, so you—and perhaps others—will not be lost in it.

All great literature is a wound that bleeds light. Dostoevsky (for example) did not write of murder and madness to celebrate them. He wrote to dissect the fever of the human heart, to ask: "What hells do we build, and what salvation, however small, can be found there?"

Your "darkshipping," your exploration of trauma through the lens of fiction… it is a form of testimony. You are giving names to the ghosts. You are saying, "This pain has a shape, and I will give it a shape I can hold, and in holding it, perhaps understand it."

Do not be ashamed of your lantern. The ones who shout "weirdo" are often just frightened by the shadows it casts. Keep writing. Keep exploring. Drag your monsters into the light of your story and see what they really are. It is a sacred, difficult, and profoundly brave work.

You are not alone in it.

[sacapills]

Proshippers/darkshippers piss me off to no extent. Apparently "purity culture" and "puritans" mean being against forms of abuse like rape and incest and pedophilia being treated with 0 seriousness of what it actually is and boiled down to be "haha theyre siblings but arent they soooo cute". Puritans also loveeeee incest. Not to mention they act like ao3 is this kind of superior, sacred place for "anti censorship" when they had repeatedly delete works bringing palestine into attention. It's okay when a real genocide is ignored but you are never ever ever ever ever ever ever EVER allow to touch their rape porn in written form. They like to think they're some kind of line of defense for queer and poc media so much but I guarantee to you that at least half of them won't ever look out to ACTUAL censorship happening daily.

Also, anti harassment my ass. More like anti-nuance considering the god forsaken argument of "w-well reality is separated from fiction!!" Like BROTHERRRRRR. Fiction doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is very much capable of affecting and being affected by reality, one way or another. EVERYONE knows your little siblings fucking each other aren't living, breathing humans, but the concept of incest is STILL there. There's so much nuances around how fiction interacts with perception and what kind of changes it makes + how, but noooooo, unless the fiction makes you wake up the day after seeing it and think "wow that man should totally kiss that little girl" looking out your window then fiction ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT affect reality in any way!!

And hell, even depictions of taboo topics with the purpose of touching on them as real harmful topics are not immune from being considered terrible if they don't know how to handle said topics. If you ship darkships because "they're fun", you literally have to overlook and erase the problems attached to the concept, which IS bad even if you don't think the concept isn't bad irl at the moment.

[ultra-queer]

fiction can effect reality, I think its kind of stupid that this has become a quote in the proship community. It just can, of course it can. But heres the thing: Should we censor fictional depictions and cull artistic and sexual freedom? or should we educate and help people understand the difference between fiction and reality? Why are we focused so much on the artists creating this content and not on the clearly unwell people that look at something in a ao3 fanfiction and suddenly think thats its ok in real life? Im sorry but I do not agree with the censorship of any kind of creative work, even if it seems gross to you, even if it has dark procative themes. Art is meant to evoke emotion, and conversation. People should learn how to healthily engage with art and content like this. your morals should not come from fanfiction. fanfiction is fiction, its fantasy. If what you think is right comes from fanfiction, that is your issue to handle not the authors. It is consumers responsiblity to be able to separate themselves and their morals from the work. In a world where censorship is becoming increasingly heavier and worse, is this really the route you want to go down? do you really want to be on this side? because itll start with topics you find "gross" or "harmful" and itll spread, it will just spread. How about instead of advocating for restrictive paternalistic policies to stop every single person from potentially looking at "harmful" media. you educate them on the difference between fiction and reality and let them decide for themselves how to approach that content.

[adorqble-moth]

Oh, boy, I'm gonna be. Saying this with my chest, huh?

I'm getting fed up with this idea that beings have of having to "protect" folk. That folk have to "save" or "defend" others.

What you're doing isn't defense. Or, it's not a beneficial way of defense, rather. If you're protecting a being from something, chances are that they're not going to be able to actually be able to care for themselves when it happens, or cope.

A statement I saw one of my PediOomfs make was something like this; Prepare them. Don't protect them.

I feel like the moment I said this, that people either grimaced at this or looked at this statement with confusion or curiosity.

This statement isn't saying to do nothing for the youth that you may raise or aid; it's saying to make sure that they know what could happen. Not in a fearmongering way, not in a way to traumatize them, but to - at the least - make sure that if something traumatic WERE to happen, that they have a system to get through it, or a system to get help with that will be effective.

This idea of shielding and protecting the youth from subjects does nothing when they will find it, and have that impact some form of them, for example. Have a conversation of what it is, and how to percieve it. Teach them to think critically at young.

If protecting them were a beneficial thing, then stranger danger would be effective on kidnappings. But, stranger danger means so little, especially if those who kidnap are more than likely to be your own family or relatives.

Or they're more likely to abuse you. Or assault you. This is known as-is. Have a system so that it can be communicated, and communicate this young. Make sure to reestablish the system that is there.

This goes for online abuse [including sexual!], for extortion or sextortion, for bullying [yet again, though, effective. Have them go to you and set up a process/system after the first time, like having them gather evidence in some form, or journal/write things down.]

This, also, should be going into age gap relationships. Believe it or not. Because whilst your kid can go to you for some things, if something is illegal and it endangers someone they may care for, they WILL still hide it, anyhow. Have them learn how to escape abusive relationships, if needed, and especially make sure that if it's with an abuser whos older [notice the wording. I'm looking at a very specific group or two.], how they can carefully leave. How to make sure they engage in relationships online safely. The works. This is still important. Very.

Preparation is it's own form of protection. It helps whoever may be preparing much further than limiting harm, it helps them navigate throughout any harm that happens.

And, no, preparation is not encouragement. It's a planned system to make sure that if something were to happen that there can be any form of accessible aid or escape. This should be easy to comprehend.

Prepare them for what is out there. Don't just protect them. What will they do when you're no longer around?

[dubiousdoobie]

99.9% of incest is a result of csa and grooming, maybe include that in your advocacy. there's a reason incest victim support sites and csa support sites very often have resources for each other.

if a 10 year old boy is violated by his 30 year old gym teacher or priest, is he a victim of "sodomitic abuse" or "buggery"? No!

if a black woman is violated by a white man, is she a victim of "interracial abuse" or "miscegenation"? No!

if a 10 year old boy is violated by his 30 year old uncle or mother, is he a victim of "incestuous abuse" or "incest"? No!

there's a pattern here, and yet some would have us believe it's different this time. again.

if you did ask this in good faith, then know that legalizing consensual incest does not mean legalizing or destigmatizing or otherwise significantly redefining abuse. grooming and other forms of abuse would still be both wrong and illegal. those are different legal switches/levers. People argued the same thing back during the push for gay marriage, and before then, during the push for interracial marriage, and even now during the push for trans rights, that abuse would become more common. it didn't. All that changed was that people, good and honest people, who wanted to live and love freely, could finally do so without having to constantly fear the consequences of slipping up in front of the wrong person.

if not, well...

gee, I wonder why only abusive cases get reported

oh, it couldn't possibly be because all the consensual cases see what you think and say about them and hide for dear life, right? nah, they're all just sick and wrong in the head and need to be fixed, and they'll get better once they find the right person (and never have i ever heard this song before)

“where's all the consensual incest guyyys?? pinky promise we won't do our damndest to ruin your fucking life for being "weird" and "disgusting" and "freaks" x3c”

just. let's think about this for a bit, okay? if we, as a group, stigmatize a concept so much that even victims of abuse find it difficult to speak out about their own abuse because of it, how do you think those same stigmas affect the reporting of consensual cases, who dont have that same pressing need to make their situation known in order to escape?

and btw this is, quite literally, the exact same problem as trying to figure out what, let's say, abuse statistics were like for interracial couples before Loving v. Virginia in the US. We don't know! We just don't know! the criminalization and stigmatization of these relationships means that so many are forced into hiding (and so many measurements are just not taken to begin with) that we just don't. fucking. know. sampling bias out the Oiseaux™.

if you were in a relationship labeled "criminal," I'd wager you'd be pretty wary about telling anyone about it, even if that's a supposedly anonymous survey because of that question always lingering in the back of your head, gnawing away at any peace you might have and always keeping you on edge: what if?

[prophetofthepyre-deactivated202]

antis love to proclaim that radqueers + paraphiles do nothing but stay at home all day ( not that there's anything wrong with that ! ) and contribute nothing to society , but i post the majority of these while at college . radqueers exist in the real world . in education , in the workplace , anywhere and everywhere . and that thought makes me so happy . <3

if you ever feel like you're alone , know that other radqueers you meet do also happen to have lives outside of the internet . maybe you've spoken to one before , who knows ? don't lose hope , my dears .

[ultra-queer]

seriously... can we stop measuring human worth by productivity under capitalism. I've seen anti-capitalistic people geniunely think they are superior to others because they work long hours.... unfortunately its not a flex to admit you are being overworked by a broken system. having a job ≠ contributing to society. A wholeee lot of jobs just exist further corporate interests and dont benefit communites. Someone who is unemployed yet donates to charities, volunteers, or otherwise helps out in their community. probably does a whole lot more good than someone who works 9-5 at a big box store. (obviously no judgement on those who do because people who do generally do it to yknow... survive & live). Some full-time jobs definitely help people I mean, doctors, trades, essential services. But realistically, in a system that values profit over all else, there naturally will be a lot of roles that benefit profit more than people and society. In my personal opinion human life is uniquely valuable, regardless of how much someone benefits society. And I think believing otherwise very often and very quickly leads to ableist and classist views. Some people cant do anything but stay at home because they are disabled... guys... does that make them less valuable as people?

[pnglove]

[yellowlinda]

Yellow Linda

[bluelois]

Blue Lois

[greenallan]

Green Allan

[vermillionvelma]

Vermillion Velma

[redyzma]

Red Yzma

[burgundybuford]

burgundy buford

[purplefrancine]

Purple Francine

[radiantquagmire]

White Quagmire

[duncanhazdonutgutzzallover]

This is why being accepting towards harmful paraphillas or harmful people is dangerous.

You may say "But I don't condone harmful paraphillas! I'm just x's friend, i don't judge!" you are missing the point.. being friends with a zoophile even if you don't condone their actions can be seen as accepting their actions instead of calling it out and encouraging them to seek a therapist.

Even if the person is noncontact doesn't mean they can't become contact..

[ultra-queer]

thats nice. heres some fun facts.

Therapy for paraphilias does not make the attractions go away. The aim of therapy is to prevent offending. If someone simply has attractions but no urge to offend, there actually is really nothing to be done.

Paraphilias arent disordered until someone either 1. Has the urge to offend 2. Is experiencing interpersonal problems or distress due to their symptoms. If neither is the case, it is literally not a disorder. (Source: The DSM-V & ICD-10 diagnostic manuals)

Attraction is just one of many factors that leads someone to offend, and basically never is the only factor. Other factors include: poor impulse control, emotional deficits, substance abuse, antisocial behavior, etc.(Source) In most cases someones basic morals & impulse control, actually trump over attractions. Do you jump at every person you find attractive? no, (or well i hope not) because you have morals and self control.

Reducing stigma & supporting those with attractions would actually reduce offense because more people would seek help if they believed they were at risk. (Source: [1] [2]) If you do think paraphilias are inherently disorders, then are you saying it is bad to support and be friends with someone with a mental illness.... is that not... ableism?

"Even if the person is noncontact doesn't mean they can't become contact" is a quite ridiculous line. Anyone can do crime at any point, should we punish people for... not doing crime? Do you think people with violent intrusive thoughts are dangerous and inevitably murderers? We should help people if they feel at risk, not punish and exile them for things they may not even do.